Humanities desk
< January 9	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 10

electoral certificates

Did the papers examined by Congress this week list the Electors by name, or only the vote totals? —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By name, you can see them here. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting that those for Maine and Nebraska do not say which voted how. —Tamfang (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably no coincidence. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that distribute their electoral votes proportionally, while all the other states have a winner-take-all system where one candidate wins all of state's electoral votes. You are going to have to refer back to the links in the first column listing each state's certificate of ascertainment, and cross-reference all the names of the Biden and Trump electors on those documents to the names that actually signed ME and NE's Certificates of Vote. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity related question

If someone were to be a Satanist in the past, but convert to Christianity later in life, would they go to heaven? And would Bartolo Longo be in Heaven right now? Koridas 📣 09:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to orthodox Christianity it is never too late to repent and be saved. However nobody knows for sure whether Heaven even exists, not to speak of who or what might be there.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to know for sure is to ask for him when you get to the afterlife yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Christians, the answer is in the Parable of the Lost Sheep and the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that many/most Satanist don't actually believe in or worship Satan - they're really just atheists that like ritual and trolling Christians. Iapetus (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if our Satanist manages to choose the right version of Christianity - that is, he needs to convert to a denomination acceptable to whatever denomination god turns out to be. It would be rather bad luck if he goes Roman and god turns out to belong to the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The non-facetious answer is that, under most (read: all the major ones, standard disclaimers that there's probably some small sect that believes differently, yada yada yada) strains of Christianity, an emphasis is placed on redemption, which is to say that salvation comes from being a properly practicing Christian (for whatever your denomination of choice defines as "properly practicing") and that there is no sin for which Christ's redemption is insufficient to cover. This is very general, and you're going to get a lot of difference between denominations over both the heady stuff (theology) and the technical stuff (practice) but at a most basic level, there is no sin that a person could commit that they cannot be saved from, according to most Christian thinking. --Jayron 32 18:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Covid compared to past pandemics?

Why did Covid have much greater social impact (like lockdowns across the world) compared to past pandemics? How is its medical impact (like death rates) compared to past pandemics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulut Besar (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The different response was due to two factors, firstly that it occurred during the First World War meant that governments kept it quiet so that the war effort was not disrupted. Secondly, viruses were unknown at that time and the transmission of the disease could only be guessed at. Furthermore, the concept of central governments playing a major role in public health was not well developed, so countermeasures were often left to local authorities, some of which acted more decisively than others. Some developing countries were completely devastated by the disease; in Western Samoa, 30% of adult men, 22% of adult women, and 10% of children died. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the most significant factor is surely the massive increase in air travel which allowed Covid to spread worldwide very quickly.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That did help Australia and New Zealand who were able to quarantine ships before they landed. However, the mass movement of people by sea and rail because of the war, meant that the spread was unstoppable elsewhere. Some of the worst mortality was on troopships; on RMS Tahiti, out of 1,217 troops and crew on board, about 1,000 were infected and 77 died. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covid has killed fewer people (so far) than the 1918 flu did, because medical treatment is better now than it was then, and/or because the virus itself is less virulent (it's hard to determine this). and/or because the 1918 flu pandemic was 2 years and Covid has only been under way for less than half that long. Covid isn't anywhere near done yet. Even though vaccines are rolling out now, Covid 2.0 (the UK variant) spreads much faster than the initial version, and people are no longer willing to take any resistance measures such as lockdowns. When they do implement a lockdown (usually because ICU's are full), they only keep it in place long enough to free up some ICU beds, and then they let the virus spread again and mutate even more. So a huge number of new infections and fatalities are coming, maybe even vaccine resistant ones. It will be at least a year or two before we can really compare the scores. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note on terminology: "The UK variant" is actually named B.1.1.7. (There is also a long name if you prefer it.)

Note on the question: the original poster asked about "past pandemics" in general, not the WW1-era flu pandemic specifically. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Social impacts are difficult to measure, but were definitely present in past pandemics. For an example of past lockdowns, see this article about quarantine efforts in 16th-century Sardinia . For an example of post-pandemic societal change, see Consequences of the Black Death. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Death was not the first appearance of Yersinia pestis, however, despite being the most famous. The earlier First plague pandemics, especially the Plague of Justinian has been argued to have been at least as bad as the one 800 years later. Constantinople lost something like 40-50% of its population to death by Plague alone, and was further depopulated by people abandoning the city for the countryside. Constantinople was likely the largest city in the world at the time, a position it lost directly because of the plague and would never regain. It would be as if Tokyo lost half of its population in less than a decade. As bad as Covid (or Spanish Flu) is, we know nothing like the kinds of societal changes Yersinia pestis plagues caused. --Jayron 32 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why does every dang sequel have to be "2.0" anymore? Since the species is officially SARS-CoV-2, how about 2.1 if you must? Or even 2.01, as the difference is so small. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the question of how strong the average immune system is today compared to 1918. Given the much larger number of known sufferers of allergies and autoimmune disorders, our modern "healthy" population might not be as resistant to infections in general as the populace was then. --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor is available treatments. Intensive care units are a recent invention. Back in the days when they didn't exist, they couldn't be overloaded, so there was no need for lockdowns to prevent ICUs from being overloaded. If everybody is going to be infected anyway, and healers can't do anything so they won't be overloaded anyway, it's best to get over it quickly and avoid those costly quarantines and lockdowns. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There might not have been intensive care units, but the dying still had to be treated and the provision of hospital beds for the population was much lower than today; in London the hospitals were trying to treat people in corridors and store rooms. A huge warehouse in London was used as a temporary hospital. An account by a doctor at the St Marylebone Infirmary:

"The staff fought like Trojans to feed the patients, scramble as best they could through the most elementary nursing and keep the delirious in bed. The patients increased and the nurses decreased, going down like ninepins themselves – sad to relate some of these gallant girls lost their lives in this never to be forgotten scourge – and as I write I can see some of them now literally fighting to save their friends then going down and dying themselves". [1]

Alansplodge (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US soldiers in Iraq

Many images showing US soldiers in Iraq are categorized in commons categories completely unrelated to Iraq, like, in order to name some examples:

Category:Mexican American History

Category:2007 in Fort Bragg (North Carolina)
These don't look like US troops! Needs to be checked.

Category:Fort Bragg

Is this on purpose? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that whoever uploaded the images was not really conversant with the category concept. It's easy to add in a category yourself, just hit the last "+" symbol in the category box and type it in. "United States Army in the Iraq War" is the general category, but the 73rd Cavalry images should probably be "82nd Airborne Division in Iraq". The last image could also go in "Portrait photographs of boys". There are a huge number of images awaiting categorisation, so I'm sure that the volunteers who work on these would welcome your help. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to images that are already categorized. Sometimes the images are more likely in Iraq, like all images in Category:2007 in Fort Bragg, or File:Basra patrol DVIDS133522.jpg from Category:2008 in Fort Bragg, sometimes the images seem to refer to training in Fort Bragg, like File:Defense.gov photo essay 111025-A-3108M-003.jpg. It is not an easy task. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history might help? Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was bored so I did some for you, but you're right, there are an awful lot of them. Alansplodge (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that whoever uploaded the images was not really conversant with the category concept. You should see who uploaded most of the images above. That person is far too experienced not to know better. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that first image. I think there's some Wikidata fuckery happening that auto-generated that category. Look at this diff from Commons. What the hell is going on there?? But the next couple images are from one of the highest upload count editors from Commons, and don't include weird Wikidata stuff. I don't know. I think whoever is uploading these miscategorized images was running malfunctioning scripts to automatically categorize (the tagging of 82nd Airborne pics as "Fort Bragg" makes some sense since that's where they're based) and they just never fixed this. But this is a Commons problem. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first image was uploaded in the middle of a long series of uploads that were (correctly) categorized as belonging to the category Mexican American History. Probably a slip-up by the uploader. All these images were taken by the same photographer. --Lambiam 01:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The images placed in a Fort Bragg category relate to the Charlie Troop 5th Squadron from the 82nd Airborne Division, patrolling in Iraq. The 82nd Airborne Division is based in Fort Bragg. They are also in the commons cat 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq. --Lambiam 13:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other units depicted including military police, who may or may not be in the 82nd. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other cases where the law forces one to endure extraordinary burdens in order to have a guaranteed shot to escape/avoid legal responsibilities/obligations?

Which cases other than child support (where male-bodied people literally have to choose between surgical castration and abstaining from penis-in-vagina sex with ALL fertile and potentially fertile female-bodied people for the rest of their lives--AND also avoid EVER getting raped by ANY female-bodied people--in order to avoid being forced to pay child support for 18+ years) are there where the law forces one to endure extraordinary burdens in order to have a guaranteed shot to escape/avoid legal responsibilities/obligations? I mean, I could think of abortion bans in countries where abortion is still illegal, but exactly what else is there that would actually qualify for this? Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would presume that driving a car would NOT qualify for this since if one unexpectedly had a stroke while driving and thus crashed into someone and hurt and/or killed them, then one would NOT be held financially responsible (or responsible in any other way) for this other person's injuries and/or death, correct? After all, in such a scenario, one's stroke wouldn't really be "reasonably foreseeable" (or at least not that much), now would it? In contrast, in regards to child support, "reasonable foreseeability" is unfortunately completely irrelevant. Even if you will get 99.99% of your vas deferens surgically removed, it's apparently still "reasonably foreseeable" that it will regenerate (grow back) and reattach, thus restoring one's fertility! (If you chop off 99.99% of one's finger, then it will NEVER grow back, but the same unfortunately CANNOT be said for one's vas deferens if 99.99% of it is surgically removed!) Futurist110 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many people just assume that not driving a car is an unreasonable burden, but there are billions of people that don't own one. Other people think that not being able to have a couple of beers and then some more before getting behind the steering wheel is an unreasonable burden. If you are driving, you do not need to get a stroke to cause an accident. No one can remain 100% attentive full-time for long periods. A driver can misjudge a situation or be subject to an accidental visual illusion. While perhaps not criminally culpable, they may still be liable for damages. Most house fires are started by negligence of some form or other; do not use heaters or even electricity. Also, do not cross the street, except perhaps at pedestrian crossings where pedestrians have the right of way. Otherwise, you may cause a car to swerve and cause damage due to your crossing. --Lambiam 00:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, even in your scenario, you've not described enough to avoid legal responsibility for child support. At least in theory, because it's not the child's fault, you could be on the hook for child support of a child born from stolen genetic material. Anyway, a lot of this depends on fairly subjective judgments of how severe a burden truly is, and how remote a risk we wish to avoid.

Lambiam lists off some great examples illustrating why this list is essentially endless. If you don't have electrical service in your home, it is a factual impossibility that negligently-maintained wiring could cause a guest to sustain an injury. Of course in that scenario, you might argue, "then don't negligently maintain your wiring"; I would respond that the same argument applies to the pregnancy example. Contraception, while not making pregnancy a factual impossibility, is far more effective than your high school health teacher likely led you to believe. The technical details of that, particularly the actual failure modes and why they occur, I'll leave to the science desk. My point is that, the number of scenarios where your opportunity cost concerns arise are infinite. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow the OP's meaning here. It is impossible to guarantee not being struck by lightning, and that is likely to happen more often than the scenarios hinted at by the OP. Pregnancy avoidance is not that hard; and does not require surgical castration. Once again, we're going down this road assuaging their phobia about paying child support for a child he has no intention of having. If you don't want to have children, don' t have them. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. There are many people who are childless by choice and it is not as complicated as you make it out to be. Stop using this desk to do this. Please. If you are worried in these directions, talk to a medical professional. --Jayron 32 14:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha; understood! Futurist110 (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To Jayron's wise words, I might add that many males (including myself) find celibacy to be a perfectly tolerable lifestyle (though admittedly some others do not). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In legal jargon, the situation where you are legally responsible for an undesired outcome even if you did your best to prevent it is called strict liability. That type of liability usually arises when you were doing something you didn't have any good reason to be doing in the first place: keeping a tiger in your backyard is the classic example. You keep it securely caged, but if it gets loose and eats someone, you are on the hook because what kind of whacko keeps a tiger as a pet? On the other hand, if you had a normal pet like a rabbit, that turns out to be descended from the killer Rabbit of Caerbannog and it eats someone, that outcome was harder to foresee so the legal situation is different (IANAL, this is not advice, etc). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if ones experimental procedure goes awry and turns one into a giant prize-vegetable devouring were-rabbit? --Lambiam 12:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, looking at other strict liability situations is a good comparison, since you're responsible for your child regardless of whose "fault" its life is. And yes, ultrahazardous acts like transporting explosives or keeping dangerous animals are classic examples. A more concrete example for most people, though, would be certain theories of product liability. That said, I think strict liability is still not as strict as parental responsibility; liability in a strict liability situation may be avoided when the plaintiff has "assumed the risk" (though this is much harder to prove than comparative negligence). With parental responsibility, I believe even a child conceived through the deliberate and wrongful acts of its mother or a third party could be entitled to the support of its father. That and there are other ways out of child support that have no analogue in strict liability tort law. For instance, when a child is adopted, the biological parents' rights (and parental responsibilities) are usually terminated (I've heard of horror stories where they weren't), and the child's rights to inherit from the biological parents' estates are eliminated. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested, the doctrine was expounded in Rylands v Fletcher. 95.148.1.243 (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watteau's Le Printemps

Our article Lady Sybil Grant says she owned Le printemps by Watteau, but that it is now destroyed. How and when was it destroyed? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Lost artworks, destroyed by fire in 1966. --Lambiam 00:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more details here. Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so it disappeared, we don't know when or whence, was rediscovered in 1964, we don't know where or how, and was destroyed in a fire in 1966, we don't know where or why. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]